A recent decision by district judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. illustrates the broad scope of Rule 15’s amended pleading provisions. In the underlying copyright-infringement action, Leonard sought to leave open the operative infringement date in response to negative case law raised by Stemtech during mediation. Stemtech argued that this late change in position was simplyContinue reading “Joseph J. Farnan: Amended Complaint Allowed to Stave Off Negative Case Law”
Category Archives: Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
Judge Farnan: Damages opinion
Judge Farnan decided damages in the amount of $305,399 plus pre- and post-judgment interest in AU Optronics Corp. v. LG Display CO., et al., C.A. No. 07-357-JJF (D. Del. July 8, 2010). Judge Farnan found that AUO failed to establish that LGD willfully infringed, noting that since Seagate, there has been “tension in the caseContinue reading “Judge Farnan: Damages opinion”
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: No Standing Where No Control Over Exclusionary Rights
It is black letter law that a party asserting patent infringement must have standing to sue before it can bring a claim for infringement. Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 09-390-JJF, Memo. Op. (D. Del. June 25, 2010). Defendants in Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., brought a motionContinue reading “Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: No Standing Where No Control Over Exclusionary Rights”
Joseph J. Farnan: Applicants’ “Misjudgment” Precludes Finding of Intent to Deceive
In a wide-ranging post-trial opinion issued on Tuesday, District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. covered many topics, including standing, reissue, obviousness, and inequitable conduct. Of these, the Court’s decision on inequitable conduct is particularly noteworthy for its explanation of the contours of deceptive intent: “While in hindsight it may be attractive to construct a deliberateContinue reading “Joseph J. Farnan: Applicants’ “Misjudgment” Precludes Finding of Intent to Deceive”
Joseph J. Farnan: Multiplicity of Prior Art Leads to Stay of Proceedings
On Friday, District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. granted a request for a stay pending reexamination. While this outcome is not unusual in Delaware, the Court made the notable observation that the sheer number of prior art references at issue made simplification of the case more likely following scrutiny by the PTO: “[I]t is noteworthyContinue reading “Joseph J. Farnan: Multiplicity of Prior Art Leads to Stay of Proceedings”
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Jury Verdict
On June 15, 2010, a Delaware jury returned a verdict for plaintiff Dow Chemical Company and awarded Dow Chemical damages in the amount of $61.77 million. The Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., C.A. No. 05-737-JJF, Verdict Form (D. Del. June 15, 2010). Specifically, the jury found that all four of the accused productsContinue reading “Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Jury Verdict”
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Contempt Motion or DJ Action?
In response to a contempt motion filed by nCube Corporation alleging that SeaChange violated the permanent injunction by developing a redesigned product that also infringes the patent-in-suit, SeaChange filed a declaratory judgment complaint requesting that the Court find its new product does not infringe the patent-in-suit. nCube Corporation v. Seachange Int’l Inc., C.A. Nos. 01-011-JJF,Continue reading “Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Contempt Motion or DJ Action?”
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Motions in Limine
In an order addressing various motions in limine filed by the parties, Judge Farnan granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant from introducing any evidence or argument related to plaintiff’s pre-suit investigation and testing “as it relates to the use of evidence of the attorney-cleient privilege to create a negative inference.” The Dow Chemical Company v.Continue reading “Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Motions in Limine”
Judge Farnan: Attorney’s Fees Denied in Microsoft v. WebXchange
Last year, we posted about a declaratory action brought by Microsoft against WebXchange, which Judge Farnan dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. There was no case or controversy, because WebXchange had not accused Microsoft of infringement, even though WebXchange has a pending infringement action against several Microsoft customers involving the same patents. WebXchange thenContinue reading “Judge Farnan: Attorney’s Fees Denied in Microsoft v. WebXchange”
Judge Farnan: Motion to Strike Declaration of Expert Not Disclosed During Discovery DENIED
In The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corp., C.A. No. 05-737-JJF (D. Del. May 20, 2010), after defendants’ filed their motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted expert declarations in support of its counterstatement statement of facts opposing summary judgment. Id. at 3. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to strike the declarations because the expertContinue reading “Judge Farnan: Motion to Strike Declaration of Expert Not Disclosed During Discovery DENIED”
Delaware IP Law Blog 